| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Will Obama Gut Defense? |
| 2008-10-28 |
| Capitol Hill Democrats want to target the Pentagon. Barney Frank will not soon be named secretary of defense or, insha'Allah, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. So there's really no reason to fear that his recent call to cut defense spending by 25% is a harbinger of what to expect in an Obama administration. Then again, maybe there is. When it comes to defense, there are two Barack Obamas in this race. There is the candidate who insists, as he did last year in an article in Foreign Affairs, that "a strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace"; pledges to increase the size of our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines while providing them with "first-rate equipment, armor, incentives and training"; and seems to be as gung-ho for a surge in Afghanistan as he was opposed to the one in Iraq. And then there is the candidate who early this year recorded an ad for Caucus for Priorities, a far-left outfit that wants to cut 15% of the Pentagon's budget in favor of "education, healthcare, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger [and] deficit reduction." "Thanks so much for the Caucus for Priorities for the great work you've been doing," says Mr. Obama in the ad, before promising to "cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending . . . slow our development of future combat systems . . . not develop new nuclear weapons." Joe Biden also cut an ad for the group that was even more emphatic: "I'll tell you what we cannot afford . . . a trillion-dollar commitment to 'Star Wars,' new nuclear weapons, a thousand-ship Navy, the F-22 Raptor." Mr. Biden is right that we can't afford a thousand-ship Navy, not that anyone has proposed it. Current levels of funding don't quite suffice to operate 300 ships, or about half the number the U.S. had at the end of the Reagan arms buildup. The Navy would be satisfied with 313. Current funding is also just adequate to purchase about 65 new planes for the Air Force each year, even as the average age of each plane creeps upward to nearly 24 years. Last year, the entire fleet of F-15Cs -- the Air Force's mainstay fighter -- was grounded after one of the planes came apart in midair. Spending on maintenance alone is up more than 80% from a decade ago. Is that another defense item Mr. Biden thinks we can't afford? As for nuclear weapons, the U.S. hasn't built a new warhead in decades. Its mainstay, the W76, is widely suspected of being unreliable, yet Congress has resisted funding the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead. Maybe it seems odd that the Pentagon, whose budget for 2009 runs to well over $500 billion -- not including the supplemental $165 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan -- should struggle to afford the equipment it needs. But it's not odd. We've been fighting two wars, straining people and equipment. Weapons have generally become more complex and expensive. President Clinton's "procurement holiday" punted the modernization problems to the present. And even after the Bush buildup, defense spending amounts to just 4% of gross domestic product. By contrast, at the nadir of Cold War defense spending under Jimmy Carter, the figure was 4.7%. All this should argue for at least a modest recapitalization effort by an Obama administration, assuming it really believes a strong military is "necessary to sustain peace." A study by the Heritage Foundation makes the case that defense spending should rise to close to $800 billion over the next four years in order to stick to the 4% GDP benchmark. That's unrealistic in light of the financial crisis. But holding the line at current levels is doable -- and necessary. But what if a President Obama doesn't actually believe in the importance of a strong military to keep the peace? Or has an attenuated idea of what qualifies as a "strong" military? Or considers military strength a luxury at a moment of financial crisis? Or thinks now is the moment to smash the Pentagon piggy bank to fund a second Great Society? Does anyone really know where Mr. Obama's instincts lie? During the third debate, he cited former Marine Gen. James Jones as a member of his wise man's circle -- which was reassuring but odd, given that the general made a point of appearing at a McCain campaign event simply to distance himself from the Democratic candidate. The Obama campaign has also produced a lengthy defense blueprint on its Web site. It reads more like a social manifesto, promising to "improve transition services," "make mental health a priority," and end "don't-ask, don't-tell." All very well, except the document is notably vague on naming the kinds of weapons systems Mr. Obama would actually support. And so the question remains: If elected, which Obama do we get? The nuanced centrist or the man from Ben and Jerry's? Some voters may like answers sometime before next Tuesday. Alternatively, they can click the button called "I'm Feeling Lucky." |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #23 When it comes to defense, there are two Barack Obamas in this race. There is the candidate who insists, as he did last year in an article in Foreign Affairs, that "a strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace";...and seems to be as gung-ho for a surge in Afghanistan as he was opposed to the one in Iraq. We've seen this schizoid behavior before. JFnKerry was for the war before he was against it. These guys (donks) will tell you anything, ANYTHING to get elected. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-10-28 20:00 |
| #22 Tell ya what cheezewhiz, lets you take all the years I gave to my country in service, and add the value up: Soviet Union? Gone. There, I win. I don't even need to go into liberating Kuwait, or dozens of little actions that you never heard about but which secured liberty. Now go away you ingrate. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-10-28 19:58 |
| #21 Cut, you mean like in fix |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-10-28 19:19 |
| #20 In civilian life when you work for your salary and pension you typically create value of some sort for which you are compensated. Like cops and firemen? You usually don't need them till the situation arises. Of course, if you wait till then it's a little too late. Your military provides the same 'security' service that those local governments do in a very nasty Darwinist world where if you mess around, you don't get a second chance. Then again if you're a socialist you would have wanted the great Socialists of the 20th Century to win. They left such a lovely legacy - 100 million dead and lands of true poverty. At least the Chinese figured that it didn't work. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-10-28 17:56 |
| #19 My guess is that Obama closes most forward bases and nearly every future arms research and development. He might cut down the overall numbers of the Army and Airforce but will probably learn that the carriers/Marines are too useful for emergencies (Tsunami anyone?) and quick peacekeeping stuff. I suspect a lot of foriegn military aid will also dry up and a lot of allies that bemoaned Bush will be unpleasantly surprised to find that the US is indeed isolationist by nature and a lot of Obama's cuts will not be seen as the bad thing they really are. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-10-28 16:49 |
| #18 I think Cheesie boy is part of the "Licentia mihi, tamen non vobis," crowd. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-10-28 15:20 |
| #17 What enormous salary : the VAST bureaucracy of the Armed services and ALL the "Retiring on a Pension" officers. THAT VAST SALARY! In civilian life when you work for your salary and pension you typically create value of some sort for which you are compensated. There is the express idea that value is created through work. |
| Posted by: Chease Platypus1825 2008-10-28 14:34 |
| #16 What enormous salary????? whatever you are smoking i want some. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2008-10-28 14:22 |
| #15 There is no way we can continue to pay enormous salaries to military personnel. But with the economy in the crapper, ordinary pay will look mighty attractive... The Navy is going to get its butt kicked, and have to rely on old ships, because it wasted time and resources when it should have been building... Does it hurt when you pull stuff out of your ass? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-10-28 14:05 |
| #14 Mojo, you read my mind. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2008-10-28 14:03 |
| #13 More money for vital panem et circenses |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2008-10-28 14:02 |
| #12 The taxes won't be directly on individuals but on businesses - which will tack it on the pricetag for goods and services. I'm not going to comment on future taxes. I want to point out that businesses can jack their prices up as high as the moon, but if their customers are tapped out, vastly overextended in debt, and/or under- or unemployed, afraid for their jobs, many of those higher prices won't be paid. Bare necessities will still be purchased whatever their price, but beyond that markets will not be doing very well. Consumer confidence is now at the lowest ever recorded. Cutting government expenditures on defense & health care will most likely just make my scenario worse. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2008-10-28 14:01 |
| #11 Gotta pay for the bread and circuses somehow... |
| Posted by: mojo 2008-10-28 13:51 |
| #10 Afghanistan is "anti-war" Obama's favorite place to send our troops because it is most like VietNam--in that we can't really win there as easily (or at all) as we did in Iraw, and in that it will drain our resources and cut back on our volunteer force through higher casualties than in Iraq--he will first gut the military with a war there, then justify his disallowance for bringing military weaponry up, and justify vast military spending cuts as he encourages all to embrace the New World Order. Obama's goal is to disempower America. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2008-10-28 13:48 |
| #9 There is no way we can continue to pay enormous salaries to military personnel. Enormous salaries??????????? |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-10-28 13:44 |
| #8 Is a frog's a$$ water-tight? |
| Posted by: Uncle Phester 2008-10-28 12:52 |
| #7 (notso) CrazyFool "they will seek to expand these problems" We will be in for be FDR's second "bill of rights". The stuff he never got passed. Joy. Pray McCain wins. Pray hard. |
| Posted by: Minister of funny walks 2008-10-28 12:10 |
| #6 But this is just defense. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are also going to take major hits. Somehow I can't imagine the Donks going for this. If anything they will seek to expand these problems in order to make more people beholden to them. And how will they pay for it? Increase taxes of course. The taxes won't be directly on individuals but on businesses - which will tack it on the pricetag for goods and services. And sorry the numbers just don't add up and that $250K limit promised? Well it'll be closer to $50K.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-10-28 11:44 |
| #5 Procurement holiday part II. Production lines kept idle, but open to provide jobs for all. Look for the real $$ cuts to come from O&M. Bottom line? BOHICA |
| Posted by: Minister of funny walks 2008-10-28 11:40 |
| #4 This calls for the bear and newspaper picture. |
| Posted by: Grunter 2008-10-28 10:47 |
| #3 I don't think it matters who is next president because either will have to seriously gut the federal budget. But that being said, there are far better and far worse ways of doing it. There is no way we can continue to pay enormous salaries to military personnel. But with the economy in the crapper, ordinary pay will look mighty attractive. R&D will take a major hit, because we have jumped technology for eight years now and are way ahead of the game. Drones are the one exception because they are a lot cheaper to build. The Navy is going to get its butt kicked, and have to rely on old ships, because it wasted time and resources when it should have been building next gen. They will be lucky if the USS Ford and USS Bush are even completed. But this is just defense. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are also going to take major hits. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-10-28 10:40 |
| #2 Will Obama Gut Defense? Is water wet? If they want to play accounting games, they can move military retiree pay and services from the DoD budget to the VA budget and magically reduce defense by an sizable amount. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-10-28 10:24 |
| #1 Does anyone really know where Mr. Obama's instincts lie? Yes, as a matter of fact I believe I do. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-10-28 10:07 |